Follow Blog via Email

The FCC has voted 2-1 to repeal the onerous Obama era rules to control the internet. Under the false claim that the internet needs to be fair and equal for everyone. The charge that ISP (Internet Service Providers) were throttling the speed and bandwidth of internet access in favor of customers that were willing to pay for the faster service. That was never true.

“FCC Chairman Ajit Pai wants the commission repeal the rules that reclassified internet service providers as if they were utilities. He thinks the open internet rules adopted under former President Barack Obama, a Democrat, were unnecessary and harm jobs and investment.”

Essentially, the Obama regime wanted to take control of the internet and make it a public utility. In effect making the internet like a service controlled by the government. Similar to water, sewer, and electric services, the internet would be controlled by a government panel where access cost and content would be controlled by the government.

However, the internet is a source of innovation and free market development. That freedom would have been taken away by the government. An innovator would have to meet certain government regulations in order to meet government regulatory approvals. Thus throwing a road-block into developers to improve, develop new technologies, and provide open access to the internet.

The internet is not an essential public utility. People lives would not be irreparably harmed if they didn’t use the internet. The internet is more of a luxury than an essential public service. Electric, water, sewer are essential public services for obvious reasons of health and quality of life. However, the internet is luxury.

There are people that live off the grid without internet and telephone services, and they survive just fine. My parents couldn’t make heads or tails of the internet, even though they took computer classes at the community college. I remember my father complaining about popup ads and asking why do they do this on the internet. I said it’s like a newspaper, but with ads that popup to get your attention.

People worry that their internet access and costs would be at the mercy of the ISP provider. The beauty of a free market internet is that you are free to choose your ISP provider. Just like newspapers, you can switch to another publisher, and just like your internet provider, you can switch to another ISP provider. If you don’t like Comcast, then you can switch to another provider like either Time-Warner, Verizon or some local provider.

Under a “One-Size-Fits-All” net neutrality government run utility, you don’t get a choice in providers. You get what the government approves. The government isn’t effective in controlling commerce, but the government would try to control internet content and that’s a scary thought.

Because Net Neutrality would be government controlled, it also means the government would control the content on the internet. The internet would be subject to political influences. The Alt-Left socialists, a.k.a. democrats, want to censor and restrict access to internet content. Just like when the “Fairness Doctrine” was passed in 1949 to restrict the content on the radio. Net Neutrality would restrict Free Speech. The socialist left in America is pushing hard to restrict your First Amendment, and they are not trying to hide it.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was — in the Commission’s view — honest, equitable, and balanced.

Thus the name “Net Neutrality”. The left claims it would make the internet fair and balanced, but in reality it would restrict the content and censor free speech. The left is good at creating flowery names to impose socialism on Americans. President Ronald Reagan repealed the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 and that has brought freedom to the radio airwaves. The explosion of Conservative Talk Radio has become very popular. Just like freedom of the airwaves, freedom of the internet is essential for the proliferation of free expression.

If you don’t like the opinions, then the solution is simple! You change the channel! Just like newspapers, if you don’t like the content, then you can find another newspaper. That is the value of a Free Market Capitalist system. The popularity of Conservative Talk Radio has moved to the internet, and the purpose of Net Neutrality is to restrict content as “honest, equitable, and balanced”. Which is socialist code for censorship of free speech.

Here’s an example: Remember “Air America?” Air America was a leftist radio program organized by socialists personalities to counter the popularity of Conservative Talk Radio. It didn’t last very long. Why? Because of the content. It’s wasn’t entertaining. It was mostly hate speech and it quickly turn people off, and the people switched off Air America. The free market determined the fate of Air America. If Net Neutrality were enacted, then the government would fund this content to keep it on the air. Is that a good use of your tax dollars?